- cross-posted to:
- technology@kbin.social
- cross-posted to:
- technology@kbin.social
I do wonder how were they going to enforce it in the first place.
You must log in or # to comment.
enforce it
aren’t teslas always connected to HQ, and they could easily be disabled?
Just like with the self driving thing, and when resold it was disabled for the new buyer even though the original purchaser paid for it
I guess I was going more for the legal reasoning rather than technical. Yes, technically disabling a computer is trivial. I just can’t see how a company can do that when it’s legal property of somebody else. That’s just a lawsuit waiting to happen.
why would laws and regulations stop muski ?
Just a guess, but perhaps it’s treated as a software license?
It might be tesla’s wishlist, but no way you can brick a car and use that as an excuse.
The car still functions so not fully bricked, but I see the argument that the purchased self driving function is bricked. Wouldn’t be surprised if there’s language in the agreement that deems it as a service. Just another shitty business practice to increase bottom line.
Holy shit, they did this? How has there never been a lawsuit that made headlines? IMO, that’s theft.
I think they realized that the market will enforce it for them
I hate scalpers and dealerships more than I hate Tesla, this is a bad move.
Yeah, this type of stuff just leads to artificial scarcity and scalping. I hate that such a huge chunk of “gig” work these days is just buying shit that people want, holding it hostage, and getting a higher price for it.
I’m apparently under a rock, but did they start selling this thing? I see R1T’s and F150 Lightning’s every day but I thought the cybertruck was just a concept car?
They took pre orders years ago and I think the end of the month people will begin getting them if they don’t push it back any more.
